Richardson v. Bean

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 16, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01297
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Gregory Richardson, Case No.: 2:24-cv-01297-APG-NJK

4 Petitioner Order Granting Motion for Leave to File 5 v. Second Amended Petition

6 Bean, et al., [ECF No. 13] 7 Respondents

8 9 The Federal Public Defender, counsel for 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petitioner 10 Gregory Richardson, has filed a protective first amended petition and a motion for leave to file a 11 second amended petition. ECF Nos. 12, 13. I find good cause to grant the motion for leave to 12 amend. 13 Richardson filed a first amended petition before the date the FPD calculated that the 14 AEDPA statute of limitations expired, for the purpose of preserving all potential claims pending 15 counsel’s full investigation of the case. ECF No. 13. Richardson contemporaneously seeks leave 16 to file a second amended petition. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a party may 17 amend a pleading with the court’s leave. “The court should freely give leave when justice so 18 requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Rule 15 reflects a “policy of favoring amendments to 19 pleadings,” and courts should apply that policy “with ‘extreme liberality.’” United States v. 20 Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Rosenberg Brothers & Co. v. Arnold, 283 F.2d 21 406, 406 (9th Cir. 1960)). When a court evaluates a request for leave to amend, a court may 22 consider bad faith, undue delay, previous amendments on the part of the petitioner, potential 23 1 prejudice to the opposing party, and whether amendment is futile. In re Morris, 363 F.3d 891, 2 894 (9th Cir. 2004). 3 Richardson acknowledges that Local Rule 15-1(a) generally requires a party that moves 4 to amend a pleading to attach the proposed amended pleading to the motion. Richardson

5 explains that the investigation into his case is ongoing, including that the investigator is in the 6 process of locating and interviewing witnesses. Richardson asserts that a second amended 7 petition that reflects counsel’s considered judgment on various issues, such as whether to clarify 8 certain claims or omit certain claims, may be more succinct and targeted and would therefore 9 streamline proceedings moving forward. 10 The court has authorized such a “two-step” procedure in prior cases in situations where 11 time potentially remains in the federal limitation period at the time of the appointment but that 12 period may expire prior to a full opportunity for investigation by counsel. See, e.g., McMahon v. 13 Neven, No. 2:14-cv-00076-APG-CWH, ECF No. 29 (D. Nev., May 29, 2014) (approving and 14 explaining the court’s rationale in allowing a bifurcated amendment procedure in habeas cases

15 where the limitation period potentially may expire before federal habeas counsel would be able 16 to conduct a complete investigation). A second amended petition drafted after counsel’s 17 investigation and further consideration of the potential claims serves judicial efficiency. So I 18 grant the motion for leave to file a second amended petition. 19 20 21 22 23 1 I THEREFORE ORDER that the petitioner’s motion for leave to file a second amended petition [ECF No. 13] is GRANTED. The petitioner has 90 days from the date of this order to 3}| file and serve the second amended petition. The briefing schedule thereafter is as described in 4|| the court’s order dated September 10, 2024, at ECF No. 9. 5 I FURTHER ORDER that the respondents’ motion for extension of time to file a 6]| response to the first amended petition [ECF No. 16] is DENIED as moot. 7 8 DATED: July 16, 2025

10 ANDREW P. GORDON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23